• #### A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 5 00:08:22 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Nov 5 15:10:21 2023
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".

CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.

This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.

And the same idiotic conclusion applies for "length contraction".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Nov 5 21:40:21 2023
On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocks
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.

Yes. For once you have written something that is correct.

This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,

Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.

Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Nov 5 22:09:44 2023
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:40:33 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocks
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.
Yes. For once you have written something that is correct.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,
Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.

Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.

Tom Roberts

LAME: "This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, as a consequence of an incorrect[1][2] and naive[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to
have aged less.
However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey.[5]"

EVEN MORE LAME: "Another way of looking at it is to realize the travelling twin is undergoing ACCELERATION, which makes him a non-inertial observer. In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins. Therefore, the twin paradox
is not actually a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction. THERE IS STILL DEBATE as to the resolution of the twin paradox.[6]"

So Tom, while this topic has been discussed for 100 years, for you such debate is senseless because you know better than half the relativists.

Good for you, even when you are wrong and accuse others of "not understanding". The problem is quite alive, being so old, but even a kid beats you debating.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Nov 5 23:38:46 2023
On Monday, 6 November 2023 at 04:40:33 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocks
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.
Yes. For once you have written something that is correct.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,
Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.

Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.

Screaming won't help, trash, anyone can check GPS, no,
they aren't. Of course, even if they were - it wouldn't change
the fact that the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, as proven above.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 6 11:00:37 2023
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".

CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.

Right!

This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.

If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Can you find them and point them out?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Nov 6 02:07:26 2023
On Monday, 6 November 2023 at 10:59:06 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".

CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
Right!

This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:

There are and they're pointed above, poor fanatic trash.
Pretending you haven't noticed and changing the subject
won't save The Shit, at least not in the long term.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Dono.@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Nov 6 12:21:24 2023
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 3:10:22 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
snip fresh imbecilities<

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Nov 6 19:14:32 2023
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:09:47 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Nov 6 19:32:51 2023
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".

CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
Right!

This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Can you find them and point them out?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Frames origin separated by d = vt, after being synchronized when both origins are coincident (at t = 0).

Time elapsed AT ANY SELECTED relatively stationary reference frame: t = d/v.

PERCEPTION of the time elapsed at ANY SELECTED RELATIVELY MOVING reference frame: τ = γt.

Paul: "The symmetry is obvious".
Paul: "Which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?"
Paul: "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!"

NO, Paul, it is not.

As a typical relativist, you need to make muddy waters of an explanation, so you can display your lies and fallacies.

The problem couldn't be MORE SIMPLE, but you need to make the explanation as twisted and retorted as possible. It's similar to
the attitude of an eccentric "smart ass" who wants to scratch his left ear with his right arm, but passing it around its neck, instead
of using the left arm OR the right arm crossing his chest.

You have been assimilated by the relativistic doctrine, which is: make things as complicated as possible, to set a defense ground
for any refutation. With this technique, you'll always have the means to explain a simple thing in complex ways, abusing of fallacies
and, of course, deceptive assertions.

Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is better to die than to reason and concede.

The paradox is not that SR is a flawed metaphysical theory. The paradox, on you, is that being intelligent yet chose a stupid theory till the end,
and waste all your energy defending this crap.

It's exactly the behavior of A FANATIC in science, football, politics, history, etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Nov 7 07:02:53 2023
On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 15:33:31 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".

CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
Right!

This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.

If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Can you find them and point them out?

Note: The question is NOT if SR is correct in the sense that
its predictions are consistent with measurement/observations.
This can't be proved.

The question is if SR is consistent, that is free of self contradictions. That SR is consistent can be and is proved.

A lie, of course, as expected from relativistic trash. It's not
proven, it's actually proven oppositely - right above.

To prove that "The Shit" is inconsistent, you have to prove that
the Lorentz transformation (LT) is inconsistent.

Bull;shit. To prove that The Shit is inconsistent, I have to
point 2 claims/predictions denying each other, it's done.

Is "SR" and "mathematics of SR" the same, poor halfbrain?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 7 15:10:11 2023
Le 07/11/2023 à 15:33, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:

Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is
better to die than to reason and concede.

No, the theory of relativity is not a pseudo science.

It is a superb theory whose origin begins with Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré at the end of the 19th century.

The immense problem (and it's sad) comes from the fact that the theory has completely drifted, and that today, no one understands it anymore, it has become so stupid.

Many people today say that you should throw it away, but that's just as
stupid.

You just need to purify it.

The problem is that we don't want to.

Some want to destroy it (cranks), others want to maintain it as an
acceptable ideology (Paul B.Andersen). Both are wrong.

I explained where the problems were coming from. The first problem is the negation of Dr. Hachel's concept relating to the relativity of
simultaneity (very poorly understood by physicists), the second problem concerns the refusal of the covariance of relativistic effects (which is a shame) and the negation of Hachel's equation L=L₀.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c), the third concerns the erroneous calculation of proper times in accelerated frames of reference, and the
fourth is the calculation erroneous instantaneous speeds of relativistic
speeds in accelerated media,
because of a too easy, but stupid equation v=x/(tB-tA) that physicists
use, without understanding that in SR (accelerated) such behavior is
purely stupid.
So I explained the problem by saying that we had to take the right path,
and not diverge to the left (deny everything) or to the right (accept everything).
I explained the four problems of the theory of special relativity.
I come up against stupidity, condescension, and general hardness.
I think that in this refusal to listen to me there exists a real religious fanaticism as stupid as Muslim fanaticism.

Doctor Richard Hachel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 7 15:35:03 2023
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".

CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
Right!

This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.

If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Can you find them and point them out?

Note: The question is NOT if SR is correct in the sense that
its predictions are consistent with measurement/observations.
This can't be proved.

The question is if SR is consistent, that is free of self contradictions.
That SR is consistent can be and is proved.

Frames origin separated by d = vt, after being synchronized when both origins are coincident (at t = 0).

Time elapsed AT ANY SELECTED relatively stationary reference frame: t = d/v.

Right. But let us express it more precisely.

_Everything below follows from the Lorentz transformation._

Below is the frame K' moving along the positive x-axis
of frame K at the speed v. Origins are aligned at t = t' = 0

-----
If you select frame K as "the stationary frame"
we have two events of interest,
Event E₀, the origins of the frames are aligned
Event E₁, the origin of K' is at x = d

E₀: In K, the coordinates of this event are: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
E₁: In K, the coordinates of this event are: x₁ = d, t₁ = d/v

Note that the times t = 0 and t = d/v are read off two
different coordinate clocks, one at x = 0 and one at x = d

------
If you select frame K' as "the stationary frame"
we have two events of interest,
Event E₀, the origins of the frames are aligned.
Event E₂, the origin of K is at x' = -d.

E₀: In K', the coordinates of this event are: x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
E₂: In K', the coordinates of this event are: x₂' = -d, t₂' = d/v

Note that the times t' = 0 and t' = d/v are read off two
different coordinate clocks, one at x' = 0 and one at x' =-d

----
You wrongly assume that E₁ and E₂ are the same event because
you think that t = t' for any event always.
But that is a postulate of NM (or Galilean Relativity),
it is NOT valid in SR.

PERCEPTION of the time elapsed at ANY SELECTED RELATIVELY MOVING reference frame: τ = γt.

You probably meant τ = t/γ where γ = 1/√(1 −v²/c²)
This is 'kind of right'. Let's see:

-------
When K is the "stationary frame", K' is the "moving frame":
In K', the coordinates of E₀ are: x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
In K', the coordinates of E₁ are: x₁' = 0, t₁' = d/(vγ) = t₁/γ

Note that the times t₀' = 0 and t₁' = d/(vγ) are read off the same coordinate clock, namely the one at the origin of K', x' = 0.
So the time (t₁'-t₀') = d/(vγ) is a proper time, τ' = d/(vγ) = t₁/γ

--------
When K' is the "stationary frame", K is the "moving frame":
In K, the coordinates of E₀ are: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
In K, the coordinates of E₂ are: x₂ = 0, t₂ = d/(vγ) = t₂'/γ

Note that the times t₀ = 0 and t₂ = d/(vγ) are read off the same coordinate clock, namely the one at the origin of K, x = 0.
So the time (t₂-t₀) = d/(vγ) is a proper time τ = d/(vγ) = t₂/γ -------------

Conclusion:
When K is "the stationary frame":
The clock at the origin of the "moving frame" K' will advance
τ'= d/(vγ) while the time (t₁-t₀)= d/v passes in K.
The time in the moving frame appears to run slow.

When K' is "the stationary frame":
The clock at the origin of the "moving frame" K will advance
τ = d/(vγ) while the time (t₁'-t₀')= d/v passes in K'.
The time in the moving frame appears to run slow.

Paul: "The symmetry is obvious".
Paul: "Which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?"
Paul: "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!"

NO, Paul, it is not.

What is not?

To prove that "The Shit" is inconsistent, you have to prove that
the Lorentz transformation (LT) is inconsistent.

That is, you must show that the mathematics of SR is inconsistent.

As a typical relativist, you need to make muddy waters of an explanation, so you can display your lies and fallacies.

The problem couldn't be MORE SIMPLE, but you need to make the explanation as twisted and retorted as possible. It's similar to
the attitude of an eccentric "smart ass" who wants to scratch his left ear with his right arm, but passing it around its neck, instead
of using the left arm OR the right arm crossing his chest.

You have been assimilated by the relativistic doctrine, which is: make things as complicated as possible, to set a defense ground
for any refutation. With this technique, you'll always have the means to explain a simple thing in complex ways, abusing of fallacies
and, of course, deceptive assertions.

is hardly a proof of its inconsistency! :-D

Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is better to die than to reason and concede.

The paradox is not that SR is a flawed metaphysical theory. The paradox, on you, is that being intelligent yet chose a stupid theory till the end,
and waste all your energy defending this crap.

It's exactly the behavior of A FANATIC in science, football, politics, history, etc.

Repeating your opinion of SR won't do.

Do the mathematics that prove SR inconsistent, or shut up.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Nov 7 07:35:26 2023
On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 16:10:15 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 07/11/2023 à 15:33, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:

Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is
better to die than to reason and concede.
No, the theory of relativity is not a pseudo science.

It is a superb theory whose origin begins with Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré at the end of the 19th century.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consistent, and it is proven right
above. Face it, fanatic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From RichD@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue Nov 7 17:47:15 2023
On November 6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox

Suppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
they sync clocks at t =0

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Dono. on Tue Nov 7 22:48:04 2023
Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 3:10:22 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
snip fresh imbecilities<

You're the No. 1 skank.

--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Nov 8 03:45:46 2023
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7:47:18 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
On November 6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
Suppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
they sync clocks at t =0

Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences. This is an *inevitable* consequence of the
properties of Minkowski spacetime. This is simple
geometry. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
such as I presented in the table.

Since there can be no disagreement between the twins
on this matter, there can never be a paradox.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Nov 8 04:04:47 2023
On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:45:48 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences

Sure, poor halfbrain. The quantity called "age"
is determined by subtraction of birth date
from current date. It's no way related to your "proper
time" idiocy. And about the *inevitable*
consequence of the properties of Minkowski
spacetime - well, you can put it straight into
your dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.

Anyway, the inconsistency which is the
subject of this thread is no way related
to your moronic twins; of course, neither
you nor any of your fellow idiots has
found any flaw in my proof, you can only
desperately try to change the subject to a
more comfortable to you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From RichD@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Thu Nov 9 17:27:17 2023
On November 8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here:

Suppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
they sync clocks at t =0

Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
such as I presented in the table.

Missing the point, as usual.

The question isn't whether they agree at finish, it's a matter of distinguishing
two different scenarios.  One, that you cover, posits the traveler starting from
rest, then accelerating.  In the other, the traveler is moving at speed V before
they rendezvous.

There are a million articles on the twins paradox, and none of them ever address
this point in their flabby pseudo-analysis.  So here's your chance to be one in a
million: recognize the distinction, and analyze both cases.

For bonus credit, place an observer Henry halfway along the route, and ask: what do the clocks show, when Traveler meets Henry?  Note that, in the case where Traveler is already in motion, Henry and Earthbound Ed will demonstrate the relative simultaneity concept; quite instructive.

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Nov 9 20:18:56 2023
On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:27:19 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
On November 8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
such as I presented in the table.
Missing the point, as usual.

The question isn't whether they agree at finish, it's a matter of distinguishing
two different scenarios. One, that you cover, posits the traveler starting from
rest, then accelerating. In the other, the traveler is moving at speed V before
they rendezvous.

There are a million articles on the twins paradox, and none of them ever address
this point in their flabby pseudo-analysis. So here's your chance to be one in a
million: recognize the distinction, and analyze both cases.

For bonus credit, place an observer Henry halfway along the route, and ask: what do the clocks show, when Traveler meets Henry? Note that, in the case where Traveler is already in motion, Henry and Earthbound Ed will demonstrate
the relative simultaneity concept; quite instructive.

The point that I tried to make, is that EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO
that you wish to dream up yields a consistent result.

Whether the traveling twin starts from rest and accelerates, or is
given a running start at the beginning makes absolutely no difference.
The distinctions that you find so utterly disconcerting are trivial
variations of the basic analysis.

Sticking a few extra observers along the route also makes no
difference, even though the different observers will have different experiences.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From RichD@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Nov 17 15:35:45 2023
On November 5, Richard Hertz wrote:
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed
relativists that maintain the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame,
then the transformations give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt. Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point
in that frame, then the transformations give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer
by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks of his own clock". CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of
reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science

A railroad track runs north-south. A train runs northward. Al and Bob sit at stations along the track, with Al south of Bob. Carl and Dave ride the train, Carl in front of Dave.

Carl rendezvous with Al, they zero their clocks.
I) the track frame: Eventually, Carl meets Bob, they compare clocks.
Later, Al and Bob agree that Carl's clock runs slow.
II) the train frame: Eventually, Al meets Dave, they compare clocks.
Later, Carl and Dave agree that Al's clock runs slow.

These are TWO DIFFERENT EXPERIMENTS.

However, you're correct, the Wiki pseudo-explanation referenced above is muddled, in a too common fashion; "Al sees Carl's clock running slow, while Carl sees Al's clock running slow." Not even wrong. Al's clock is observed by Carl AND HIS GRID; ditto Carl's clock, by symmetry. Al and Carl, each by himself, can't do it.

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 9 17:40:12 2024
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 9 18:36:36 2024
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.

Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you, poor stinker?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 9 17:32:02 2024
XPost: fr.soc.religion

Le 09/03/2024 à 17:40, Python a écrit :
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?

This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.

Le problème, c'est les bases.

C'est vrai que pour un Hachel, "Einsteinian physics" c'est pas toujours
de la crème.

Mais comme pour un Jean-Pierre Python, c'est le Dieu éternel à

Tout cela est puéril et se paye.

"En ce monde et dans l'autre" comme me disait un intervenant.

Pauvre intervenant qui n'a TOUJOURS pas compris la grosseur de ma bite,
et la vaseline agréée à utiliser pour que les va et vient soit
agréables.

"Je vais et je viens,
au creux de tes reins".
Serge.

Mais non, mais non...

C'est pas les mêmes.

En ce monde, c'est pour les uns ; dans l'autre, c'est pour les autres.

Jean-Pierre, je te supplie de faire entrer un peu d'intelligence entre
tes deux neurones.

Tu files un mauvais coton.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 9 19:19:57 2024
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.

Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.

It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.

BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,

You are dense, Maciej...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application

""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de rédaction du
Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les définitions suivantes :

La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de type
(T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que soit x, il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation fonctionnelle, on
attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des
éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses
valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.

Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction
est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction est reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et second
cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se mettent en
place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi voit-on dès la
6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les définitions suivantes :

les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.

En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en application
rend peu utile ce distinguo. """

poor stinker

Nice signature though.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 9 20:50:27 2024
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 19:19, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.

Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.

It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.

Your rants won't change anything, the utterly
stupid mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, what has been proven.

BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,

You are dense, Maciej...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application

""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de rédaction du
Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les définitions suivantes :

La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de type
(T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que soit x, il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation fonctionnelle, on
attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.

Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction
est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction est reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et second
cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se mettent en
place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi voit-on dès la
6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les définitions suivantes :

les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.

En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """

So? Is "for any element of the domain" clause in the
definition of function still confusing you or have you
learned something, poor stinker?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 10 03:31:27 2024
Le 09/03/2024 à 20:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 19:19, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.

Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.

It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.

Your rants won't change anything, the utterly
stupid  mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, what has been proven.

You've proven nothing but your own confusion and dementia.

BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,

You are dense, Maciej...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application

""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir
précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de
rédaction du Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les
définitions suivantes :

La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de type >> (T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que soit x,
il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation fonctionnelle, on
attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des
éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses
valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.

Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction
est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction est
reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et second
cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se mettent en
place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi voit-on dès la
6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les définitions suivantes : >>
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.

En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ
d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en
application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """

So? Is "for any element of the domain" clause in the
definition of function still confusing you or have you
learned something,

Did you notice the distinction between "ensemble de départ" and
"domaine" that has been (and still) is make in French math education?

poor stinker
Nice signature though.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 10 07:22:38 2024
W dniu 10.03.2024 o 03:31, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 20:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 19:19, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.

Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.

It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.

Your rants won't change anything, the utterly
stupid  mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, what has been proven.

You've proven nothing but your own confusion and dementia.

Oh yes, I've pointed directly 2 denying itself
numeric predictions of the utterly stupid physics
of your utterly stupid idiot guru - and that's
a proof of its inconsistency. Your utterly stupid
rants are not changing it at all.

BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,

You are dense, Maciej...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application

""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir
précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de
rédaction du Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les
définitions suivantes :

La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de
type (T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que
soit x, il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation
fonctionnelle, on attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une
fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des >>> éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses
valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.

Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction >>> est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction
est reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et
second cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se
mettent en place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi
voit-on dès la 6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les
définitions suivantes :

les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.

En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ
d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en
application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """

So? Is "for any element of the domain" clause in the
definition of function still confusing you or have you
learned something,

Did you notice the distinction between "ensemble de départ" and
"domaine" that has been (and still) is make in French math education?

Maybe; so?
Is "for any element of the domain" clause in the
definition of function still confusing you or have you
learned something, poor stinker?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)